Sitting of 24 June 1892

EASTBOURNE IMPROVEMENT ACT (1885) AMENDMENT BILL.
THIRD READING.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(The Earl of Morley.)
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I hope your Lordships are not going to let this Bill pass. It was introduced entirely from electioneering motives, and the fact is that it is a Bill simply for sanctioning the rioting of the Salvation Army, which has set its face against a clause in the Act which this is to amend, and thereby made Eastbourne a riotous place. The Mayor and all the respectable inhabitants of the place petitioned against the Bill, and there does not seem to be any reason why such a bad principle should be adopted as to pass legislation simply to give way to demonstrations in the streets. There are Peers who have more acquaintance with Eastbourne than I have, and I hope they will address your Lordships on the subject. I move that this Bill be read a third time this day three months.
Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): My Lords, I have some difficulty about this matter. When I originally addressed your Lordships upon this subject there was no opposition to the Bill, and I was informed that the Bill would have gone through in the ordinary course with no Committee stage at all; and, in the then condition of things, I should certainly have been prepared to move the same Amendment that my noble Friend has just moved. But I feel a difficulty about doing that now for this reason: that the Bill has been remitted to a Committee of your Lordships' House, who have heard evidence upon the subject, which I have not, and have
1850
reported in favour of passing the Bill. My Lords, under those circumstances I hesitate to place my individual opinion against theirs. I am quite certain that the noble Lords who sat on that Committee were not actuated by any such bargain as it was suggested had taken place in the House of Commons; and indeed that bargain, as I understand lately, has been denied as having taken place. I can only say that I read with great particularity and minuteness the accounts in the papers, and I had at that time no other means of obtaining information upon the subject. I do not, therefore, myself intend to propose or to support the Amendment of my noble Friend. At the same time I cannot forbear from saying that the whole conduct of those who are promoting this Bill has been calculated to enlist the sympathy of every law-abiding citizen against them in the strongest way. The only thing I can say is that there appears to have been another party even more outrageous, if possible, in breaking the law than themselves; and the passing or rejecting of this Bill seems to be susceptible to a claim of triumph on either side. My Lords, I certainly am not disposed to give a cause of triumph to the Skeleton Army; the outrageous violence of which those persons have been guilty would seem rather to enlist one's sympathy on the other side. But, my Lords, I would certainly suggest to these persons, some of whom I believe are very good persons and desirous of doing good to their fellow creatures by preaching religion, that when they are very angry with people who outrage the law it is obvious to inquire who first set the example of defying the law. My Lords, I wish to take this opportunity of saying that I have received complaints of the conduct of the Magistrates and the police, and I can only say that, from the materials at my command, I am of opinion that both the Magistrates and the police have acted with perfect propriety and with unexampled patience and forbearance towards two sets of persons, both outraging the law, and joining together in nothing except defying the proper authorities of the place. My Lords, after what I said on a former occasion I feel that I ought to explain the

1851
reasons why I am unable to agree with the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. I have no doubt that the noble Lords who composed the Committee have proceeded upon the sounder ground than I suggested before,—namely, that a particular place ought not to have a particular law different from the rest of the community. It is part of the history of this particular Bill that my right hon. Friend Mr. Matthews, when he was applied to, objected to this particular clause upon that ground. Unfortunately his remonstrance at that time was not attended to, and the House of Commons passed the Bill in spite of that remonstrance. I believe in this House also the late Lord Redesdale objected to the clause, but, when it came back again inserted by the House of Commons, rather than reject the Bill he waived his own objection. Under those circumstances, with every desire to enforce the law, and to teach the people that they must not disobey the law, I feel myself compelled, in the interests of Eastbourne itself, not to throw them back again into the state in which they have previously been. As I understand, since this Bill has been before both Houses of Parliament things in Eastbourne have been much quieter and calmer than they were before. Strongly therefore as I desire to show that I would not yield one inch to those persons who thought proper to defy the law as long as it existed, still, on the other hand, in the interests of the peace of Eastbourne itself I do not feel I can properly support the Motion that has been made for the rejection of the Bill.
*THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, I do not wish to enter into the question of who was to blame, or who was not, in these riots that have taken place at Eastbourne. I merely rise to add emphasis to the remarks that have fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as to the extreme inconvenience and undesirableness of having a law differing in different places. I believe the noble and learned Lord is quite correct in saying that when, in 1885, the Eastbourne Act was before Parliament, the noble Lord,
1852
Lord Redesdale, my predecessor in office, did object to the clause which is now sought to be repealed. And, my Lords, I am very glad the noble and learned Lord has made that remark from the Woolsack; because I think it will add considerable force to any attempts that I may have to make in resisting such alterations in the general law as applied to individual localities in future. My Lords, as the Bill does away with this anomaly I think it is one that your Lordships should not hesitate to pass. I merely make these remarks, because I think, it will greatly aid me in resisting the introduction of any such enactments into private legislation in future.
LORD WANTAGE: My Lords, I do not know that I need add anything to what has been said by the Lord Chancellor; but, having sat on the Committee, I can assure the House that the question was examined most carefully by those who were on the Committee, and that the Committee almost unanimously, with one exception, came to a decision that there was no modus vivendi without repealing this clause. I think it only right to say that there was not the slightest wish on the part of those who sat on the Committee to do anything other than express their strong sense of disapprobation against those who were engaged in breaking the law, although that law was especially directed against one particular borough; I may go further and say that it was directed against one particular body of Her Majesty's subjects, that being the Salvation Army. Now nothing, my Lords, could be more clear to us than that these people were engaged in what they think their duty, generally carrying it on with propriety, until they were met by another body known as the Skeleton Army when these great disturbances arose, in which, on some occasions, several thousand people were scrimmaging and fighting in the streets; and I think during all these unseemly troubles something like thirty-six persons were sent to gaol. The Committee therefore came to the conclusion that there really was no modus vivendi except to repeal this clause; and they were the more disposed to do so because they felt that

1853
there was a complete remedy in the hands of the authorities of Eastbourne, by doing that which other boroughs have already done, namely, by framing reasonable bye-laws, and sending them up to have them confirmed by the proper authorities. Now, my Lords, I entirely concur with what has been said by the Lord Chancellor: that nothing could have been bettor than the conduct of the police. I heard nothing but praise of this admirable body, who had to put up with a great deal in dispersing these riots during those troublesome times; and the Salvationists themselves passed a vote of thanks to the police for the manner in which they had done so. For these reasons I hope the House will see fit to read this Bill a third time and to put an end to this unseemly state of things.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a, and passed.

WITNESSES (PUBLIC INQUIRIES) PROTECTION BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, this is a Bill which passed the other House after consideration by a Select Committee. Two Bills were introduced into the other House, by way of dealing with the case of witnesses who were threatened that they might be damnified by reason of evidence they had given, or might give, before a Committee of either House, or a Royal Commission, or a Public Body of that description authorised to conduct an inquiry. There exists, of course, a mode of punishing such an offence by treating it as a contempt of the House; but it was felt generally, in the other House, that that was not a satisfactory or adequate mode of dealing with the offence; and, owing to incidents which took place there, and which brought the subject to the notice of the House, two Bills were introduced, one from the Conservative side and the other by Sir Charles Russell; both these Bills were referred to a Select Com
1854
mittee, which reported in favour of the Bill in the form in which it is now before the House, and in which it passed the other House with general assent. The Bill makes it an offence to intimidate witnesses, or to threaten them with a penalty, or to inflict penalties upon them in respect of evidence they have given, and it provides a machinery for compensation to a person who has been injured unlawfully in that respect, and makes the offence triable by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction unless either party requires that the case should be sent to the Sessions or Assizes, in which case the person is to be permitted to be tried by jury. It was felt in the other House, and I think your Lordships will feel, that the Bill supplies a want. It is obviously not right that, when an Inquiry has been ordered by this House, or the other House, or by any Public Authority, persons should be debarred, through fear of consequences, or threats of unpleasant consequences, from coming forward, freely and fully, to give the information which it is desired to elicit in the public interest; and I think your Lordships will agree that the method of punishing by bringing the parties to the Bar, and punishing them for contempt—and it may be by imprisonment—is not a mode that is altogether satisfactory, but for which it would be very desirable to substitute such a procedure as that provided for in this Bill. Under those circumstances I trust your Lordships will see your way to read the Bill a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Herschell.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BILL [H.L.]
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I was summoned by the noble Earl, who is called the Whip, to support Government measures, and I rather hoped that this was included as a Government measure, seeing that at least one

1855
Member of the Government has supported a measure of the kind in another place; but, my Lords, I find that there are objections. The noble Lord who spoke to me asked whether Peeresses were entitled to sit in this House; they certainly are entitled to a place in the Gallery, but not to sit in the House; and when Lady Abbesses sat in the House of Lords, they sat and voted by proxy. My Lords, it would be an extremely easy thing to carry a measure of this kind, because the whole country is in favour of it; and the great commotion at St. James's Hall the other day shows what a dangerous thing it is to leave this an open question before a new election. My Bill has been well considered. I have taken the liberty of corresponding with the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for many years, and I know to what extent he has gone with me. I am not disposed to proceed any further than to give the vote to women householders who are spinsters—I do not propose to extend it to the lodger franchise. This may cause opposition in another place, and you may think it is impossible to carry this Bill; but, as I told Mrs. Fawcett, my father always said, "If a thing is pronounced impossible it will happen in a fortnight." I can hardly hope for so early a settlement of this question, but at the same time it would be a very great boon if the numerous public speeches from the Throne, and Answers to Addresses, were done away with; and, in answer to the objection that was made to this measure by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that the 2nd September would be too late for carrying such a measure, I wish, my Lords, I could move that this House should adjourn to the 2nd September; because, if that were carried, then it would be in Her Majesty's power to say whether she would dissolve Parliament at once for this interference with the course of business. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has said that we could not interfere with the other House of Parliament; but the Triennial Act was introduced by an ancestor of the Duke of Devonshire in this House, and was carried in the other House. My Lords, I am
1856
very old, and I am extremely anxious that this Bill should pass. My words may not produce even a single teller, but I think it really would be courteous of your Lordships to show that there are some who are in favour of voting by female householders. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Denman.)
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, it is my duty to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, as on former occasions, not on the question of its merits—I express no hostility whatever to the views of the noble Lord—but because I do not think it is consistent with the comity of Parliament that we should entertain a Bill affecting the constitution of the other House. That seems to me a principle which it is not desirable to infringe, and I move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury).
On Question whether ("now") shall stand part of the Motion, Resolved in the Negative.
Bill to be read 2a this day three months.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.
THIRD READING.
Bill read 3a (according to order).
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, before this Bill passes out of the hands of the House, I wish to say a few words, with the permission of the House, upon an aspect of the question which has not been much noticed. The main part of this Bill is Clause 18, which gives a large sum of public money in support of the present system of national education in Ireland; and what I want to say is that the Bill is an important Bill in this respect: that it is a great step in strengthening the existing system of school education in Ireland, and that that system is virtually a denomina

1857
tional system. I do not think the people of this county clearly understand that; they have a notion that a system of common education was established forty years ago by the late Lord Derby, when Lord Stanley, and that that still goes on as a mixed and common system of education. Now really, and to a very largo extent, the existing system of education in Ireland is a strictly denominational system; with this modification, that there is a strict Conscience Clause, and that all schools, whether vested or not vested, are obliged to admit all scholars without insisting upon the religious instruction of the school. Well, my Lords, I do not think that in the passage of this Bill through Parliament any attempt has been made, or any desire expressed, upon the part of anybody, to alter that system so as to make it either more or less denominational. Last night there was a discussion, I understand—I had not the honour of being present in the House—about a question which has been raised in the House of Commons; and your Lordships must have seen it raised elsewhere in the papers, about the connection of a body called the Christian Brothers in Ireland with the system of national education. My Lords, I certainly had understood Mr. Balfour to say in the House of Commons that some arrangement was likely to be come to with that body, whereby their schools might be admitted to the benefit of a grant, without departing from their strict rules in regard to religious instruction. I believe my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal last night explained to the House that there was virtually no new arrangement of this kind at all, but that hopes may be entertained that the Christian Brothers may arrive at some understanding with the Government as to the adoption of a Conscience Clause. Further than that, I understand that no arrangement has been made. There is therefore no modification or addition made in the denominational system of Irish education. Now, my Lords, I am very glad of this. I heartily approve of the denominational system of education. I know it is unpopular on the Liberal side of the House, but I have always dissented from my noble
1858
and right hon. Friends upon this subject. I am very glad indeed that there should be a united system of education, where the branches of the Christian Church who are concerned are heartily agreed in such a direction. But where they are not agreed, if a compromise is forced upon them, I think it is an injurious system to insist upon; and I feel very strongly that in a country like Ireland, where the religious feelings of the people are very deep and earnest, and somewhat exclusive, it is quite hopeless to force upon that people a united system of education when they are determined not to adopt it. And this I feel still more strongly—that for the State to refuse to support schools which give a good secular education, because they also give a special religious education, is a great injustice, and is, in fact, a boycotting of religion. Now, my Lords, I want to ask this question of the House: Would any of your Lordships think it fair to say that giving money to a Roman Catholic school for its secular education is an endowment of the Roman Catholic religion? I think it would be a gross fallacy to say so; and therefore I wish to direct the attention of the House to a statement which I confess greatly astonished me, made by my right hon. friend Mr. Gladstone the other day in a public speech to the Nonconformists of England. He said that there was great fear that any new Parliament in Dublin would endow or maintain educational institutions in the direct interests of Roman Catholics; and he went on to say—
"This is indeed a danger; but it is a danger which does not come from an Irish Parliament, but from a much nearer hand";
and he proceeded to assert that that danger came from Mr. Balfour, the present Leader of the House of Commons, who, three years ago, had made a distinct proposal to endow Roman Catholic academical institutions in the interest of Roman Catholicism. My Lords, when I read that statement, I could not conceive what Mr. Gladstone could mean. I remembered no such proposal coming from any Member of the Government; I remembered no such proposal being discussed in the public Press in connection with any proposal of the Government. And

1859
then I recollected the foundation for this extraordinary charge against Mr. Balfour—because it was a charge; it was made at a meeting of Nonconformists, and it was intended to rouse their ultra-Protestant feelings against the Government as intending to give a specific endowment to Roman Catholics in the interests of Roman Catholicism. Then I recollected the fact, and the only fact—the rudimentary fact—on which this unjust charge was raised against the Government. My Lords, in the year 1889, towards the end of the Session, Mr. Balfour made a cursory remark that academical or university education in Ireland was not at present in a satisfactory state as regards the Roman Catholic population; he said that it did not meet their wants, and that probably we should soon have to consider some other mode in which their desires should be met. That was the sole foundation. As to any proposal, nothing of the sort was made; the words of Mr. Balfour were so vague and general that they might have pointed to anything. For instance, they might have pointed to giving a charter to the Roman Catholic Universities, or to any one of a dozen proposals for the purpose of meeting the Roman Catholics. Now, when that speech of Mr. Balfour's was made, he was instantly assailed by a howl from a great proportion of the Liberal Party, who said that he contemplated the endowment of Roman Catholicism; and this speech of Mr. Gladstone's to the Nonconformists of England is nothing but a resuscitation of that howl, for which there was no foundation whatever. Even if the matter stood thus alone, the accusation against Mr. Balfour would have been most unjust and uncalled for; but it does not stand alone; that was not all that Mr. Balfour said. He went down soon after that to Glasgow, and he made a long speech at a place called Partick, in the immediate neighbourhood of Glasgow, in which he repelled the charge which had been made against him, and the misinterpretation which had been put upon his language; and in that speech, going beyond what he was called upon to do, with that perfect openness and candour which is part of his character and has secured for him so large a
1860
portion of the confidence of his fellow-countrymen, he explained exactly what he did mean; and, instead of its being a proposal to endow the Roman Catholic Universities, he distinctly declared that he had no such idea in his head. He said that in any scheme to meet the Roman Catholic claims in Ireland, there were three essential conditions. He said—
"My own view is that we cannot, in the first place, with public advantage, found a Roman Catholic University";
—that was a distinct denial, in broad terms, of that which indirectly but effectively Mr. Gladstone pretended that he had proposed—
"That it would be fatal to the cause of higher education in Ireland if the Catholics and Protestants were not brought into competition in degrees."
The second declaration that he made was this—
"We cannot give any State endowment of theological teaching—such a request, if made, would be scouted."
And the third was, that in any system whatever for academical education in Ireland the Conscience Clause would be an indispensable condition. Now, my Lords, after that explanation by Mr. Balfour of the speech he made in the House of Commons, I must say that it is most unfortunate that Mr. Gladstone should have made a charge so utterly unfounded, and so contrary to the fact, as that which I find in this speech to the Nonconformists of England. I have very little doubt that Mr. Gladstone either did not see, or had never read, Mr. Balfour's address at Partick; but still it was a public document which was much commented upon at the time, and therefore it is one to which I can appeal in your Lordships' House when I appeal against the erroneous statement made by Mr. Gladstone. Now, my Lords, I know what the secret of this is, because, in the middle of the period between this and 1873—and here I must explain the interest that I feel in it, which is this—and I would refer to my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Kimberley), because my noble Friend and I were both Members of the Government of 1873; we were not all, of course, responsible for everything that Mr. Gladstone said then, but we were jointly responsible for the proposals

1861
made by the Government, fatal as those proposals ultimately were to the Government, and injurious to its credit. Mr. Gladstone entered upon a great scheme of reform for the University of Ireland. It was a complete and disastrous failure. He opened his address to the House of Commons in a very grave and serious manner. He said—
"This scheme of University reform for Ireland is the complement of the two other great measures which we have passed—one, for the disestablishment of the Protestant Church, and the other, the Land Act. This reform of the academical instruction in Ireland we are dealing with is the third great branch of Irish grievances."
Nothing could be more solemn than that. But he did not stop there. He went on to explain to the House of Commons the facts of Irish academical education, and he ended by saying—
"There are some persons who say, and even who venture to maintain, that under the University system of Ireland, as it now is, the Roman Catholies do not stand, after all, so very ill. I disagree entirely with those who say so. I say that the position of Roman Catholies with respect to University education is bad; I go further and I say it is scandalously bad."
Those were the words of Mr. Gladstone; and he summed up a long part of his speech by saying—
"Well now, I have proved to the House that in regard to national education there is a great religious grievance in Ireland."
Now, my Lords, I say that, although we are not all individually responsible for the details of that Bill, with which, I confess, I had nothing to do, and which I regarded with some astonishment, yet, as regards the general principle, that there was a Roman Catholic religious grievance in Ireland, we were all responsible; and I deny that that grievance has been removed to the present day. From that day to this Mr. Gladstone has never lifted a single hand to alter or amend the system of education of Ireland with a view to meet that grievance of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. Why? Because he never forgave the Roman Catholic priesthood for turning against him on that occasion. And in his very speech to the Nonconformists of England, he alludes to the rejection of that Bill. But, my Lords, the secret is this: that in the intervening
1862
year Mr. Gladstone wrote a very violent pamphlet against Vaticanism, in which the whole feeling comes out. He says—
"I consider that the Liberal majority of the House of Commons, and the Government to which I have the honour and satisfaction to belong, formally tendered payment in full of this portion of the debt due by the Irish University Bill of February, 1873. Some, indeed, think it was overpaid — a question into which this is manifestly not the place to enter—after the Roman Catholic Prelates in Ireland thought fit to procure the rejection of that measure by the direct influence they exercise with a certain number of Irish Members of Parliament, and by the temptation which was thus offered to bid, in effect, which is a homely phrase, to attract the support of the Tory Opposition. Their efforts were crowned with complete success. From that day forward, I have felt that the situation was changed—the debt to Ireland had been paid."
Now Mr. Gladstone's position is this: he announced to all the world in 1873, with the sanction of all his colleagues, that there was a great and real grievance in Ireland with respect to University education, and he proposed a scheme which was so absurd in itself that it broke down in the House of Commons, and was rejected even by his own friends—for instance, Sir Lyon Playfair and Professor Fawcett were strong opponents, and voted against it—but because the scheme was rejected, he turns round and says: "I will not now admit that there is any Roman Catholic grievance at all; my debt has been paid; I offered them this Bill and they would not accept it, and nothing more is due from me to them." That is the language that he uses. I feel that this language is wholly unworthy. I mean to say that if we other members of the Government of 1873 were to adopt that language I should be ashamed of myself. We were parties to the statement that there was a grievance, and I maintain that there is a grievance still, and that the rejection of the Bill by the House of Commons, not only by the Roman Catholics, but by his own friends, does not relieve us from the duty and necessity of some day going forward in this matter and giving some relief to the Roman Catholics in respect to University education. And now, my Lords, the connection that I draw between that and this Bill now on your Lordships' Table is this: it is the connection drawn by Mr. Balfour

1863
in his speech at Partick. He says: "You do not call it an endowment of a Roman Catholic school because you pay for its secular instruction; why should you call it an endowment of a Roman Catholic College if you pay for its secular instruction?" That was the suggestion that he made, and the only one; but as to making a distinct proposal, in the language of Mr. Gladstone, that the State should endow Roman Catholic education in the interest of Roman Catholicism, it is directly in the teeth of Mr. Balfour's declaration at Partick. Now I approve of this Bill myself heartily, because it is a considerable strengthening of a purely denominational system of education with a Conscience Clause, and I, for one, should be very glad to see such a denominational system adopted all over the country. I am convinced that the state of feeling among all classes in Ireland is such that they will not be satisfied with any education which divorces secular from religious. You must deal with the Irish people according to their feelings; and the only result of Mr. Gladstone's speech will be to increase the prejudice against the Imperial Parliament, and leave everything to be done by the new Irish Parliament. And then indeed we shall have a pretty row; because an Imperial Parliament, legislating on this matter with the full consent of the whole population of the country, is a very different thing from a local Parliament taxing Ireland alone for these Roman Catholic institutions. My Lords, I have thought it right to bring the matter forward, because I think that the statement made by Mr. Gladstone was not only most injurious to the Government and unjust to Mr. Balfour, but most injurious to the cause of the Union between the two countries. Although I am a Presbyterian and a Protestant, I am in favour of full and absolute justice to the Roman Catholic population of Ireland, and I agree with the late Matthew Arnold, who always maintained that both Parties in the country were wrong in this matter, and that we ought to go forward, and pay the Roman Catholics, not only in their schools, but in whatever colleges they erect, for their secular education, without taking the
1864
least notice of the religious education they give.
*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I do not see that there is any immediate connection between the attack which my noble Friend has made upon Mr. Gladstone—and he is always very glad to attack him whenever he can—and the Bill now before the House. No doubt the question is education; but the question is not University education at all. However I am free to confess that I have not looked into this matter, nor have I a very vivid remembrance of what Mr. Balfour said some three years ago. But this I do remember: that it was the opinion of a great many persons, which, I think, was not confined by any means to the opposite side, that in the House of Commons Mr. Balfour had used some rather vague expression—at all events, he gave that impression to a certain number of people, which implied that there was at that time to be a special endowment of the Roman Catholic higher education in Ireland. As the noble Duke says, Mr. Balfour evidently thought there was some possibility of his language bearing that interpretation, because at the same time, at Glasgow, he took a great deal of pains to explain more precisely what he meant; and I think it was generally thought that he found that there was a considerable opinion on the subject in the country at the time that he had touched the question in a manner which was likely to give some offence, especially in the North of Ireland, and that it was therefore absolutely necessary for him to explain away what he had said in the House of Commons. With regard to what my noble Friend said as to the part we took in the Bill at the close of the Government of 1868, I am not quite prepared to stand in the white sheet, as my noble Friend does. He says the Bill was an absurd Bill, I am not prepared to say it was an absurd Bill; on the contrary, I think in many respects it was a very good Bill. I know well that a great deal of opposition was raised against the Bill, but, so far as I remember, it was principally against one or two clauses which had reference to certain Chairs which were to be appropriated

1865
for the teaching of certain subjects, because it was thought religious prejudices might be excited. Since that time there have been changes made in Ireland which have placed the higher education of the Roman Catholics upon a better footing, and I believe they are, on the whole, satisfied that there has been an improvement in their position. My Lords, I understand that what Mr. Gladstone said the other day was that, if there was any ground for apprehending that there would be any endowment of Roman Catholicism such as to give offence to those who differed from them, Mr. Balfour had certainly shadowed forth something of the kind, and that if there was any apprehension to be felt, it must come from that quarter. So far as I know, the real point at issue must have been whether or not, if there were to be what is called a Home Rule Parliament established in Dublin, it would be likely to endow the Roman Catholics in that country as regards education in a manner which would be considered unfair to the Protestant population. My noble Friend rather gives colour to that; he speaks of the dangers that there might be in case a Home Rule Parliament were established. My Lords, I do not think it is at all convenient to raise incidentally, upon a Bill of this kind, the great question whether there should be what is called Home Rule for Ireland or not. It is known that we have strong opinions on this subject, and strong opinions are held on the other side; and upon that very matter there will be an issue before the country in a very few days, and we shall know what the country thinks upon it. I can only say that I firmly believe that, if there should be a Home Rule Parliament established in Dublin, there is not the smallest probability that they will deal unfairly with their Protestant fellow-countrymen, or in any way interfere with them in any arrangement that they may make. As regards what my noble Friend says of his wish that the Roman Catholics should enjoy the fullest advantages of education in every respect, in the same way as all other subjects of the Queen, I do not think there will be any difference of opinion on that point. The strongest proof that
1866
can be given that upon the Liberal side there is that wish is that very Bill which we staked our existence upon in the former Government of Mr. Gladstone—that "absurd" Bill, as my noble Friend calls it. I do not call it an absurd Bill; I think that in principle it was an exceedingly good Bill. There were undoubtedly deficiencies in detail, which afterwards we all regretted. I have no more to say on the subject. I do not think the occasion is one when my noble Friend need have gone out of his way to make this fiery attack on Mr. Gladstone; but I have no doubt it has given him great pleasure; he has ample opportunities here, and on platforms of doing so; and I have no doubt that it is not the last time that I shall hear from him these strong denunciations of one who once was our common leader.
Bill passed.

CORONERS' DEPUTIES BILL.
THIRD READING.
Bill read 3a (according to order).
On Question, That the Bill do pass.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I have an Amendment to the first clause, to which I called the attention of the House yesterday, and which I hope my noble and learned Friend will assent to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble Friend will forgive me if I say at once that I do not object to the principle of the Amendment, but I do not think it will do in its present form. It strikes me that the County Council is rather an inconvenient body; but if my noble and learned Friend will substitute the Chairman of the County Council in the case of the County Coroner, and the Mayor of the Borough in the case of the Borough Coroner, I shall not object to his Amendment.
LORD HERSCHELL: Then it will be the Chairman, or Mayor, as the case may be, of the Council?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
LORD HERSCHELL: Then I will move the Amendment in that form.
Amendment moved,
In Clause 1, line 7, to omit ("Lord Chancellor") and insert, in lieu thereof, ("Chairman or Mayor, as the case may be, of the Council");

1867
and in line 8, leave out ("the.") and insert ("such").—(The Lord Herschell.)
Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed.

TELEGRAPHS BILL.
REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
Amendments reported (according to order).
*LORD HOBHOUSE: My Lords, I do not propose to offer any opposition to this Bill at this stage or any other; but I do not like to let the Bill proceed to its end without calling attention to the effect that it will have upon the state of things in the County of London. Your Lordships are, no doubt, aware that, after very long agitation by the Local Authorities, there was passed last year an Act for the purpose of bringing under some public control, in the general interests of the inhabitants of London, all the overhead wires in London; but from the control which was thereby given to the London County Council the lines vested in the Postmaster General were excepted. I do not quite know on what principle the exception was made, whether it was that it was considered that the Postmaster General was a great public official who himself would look after the matter in the general interests of London, or whether it was considered simply that it was not well to have one public body looking after another in the same matter. However, so it was; it was not liked on behalf of the Londoners, but it was a very small matter, for I believe a very small percentage, say five per cent. it may be of the lines, was vested in the Postmaster General. Well, now it is proposed to supply the Postmaster General with money to buy up the lines, at all events the main trunk lines, of communication, and possibly the whole. And so far as the object of this Bill is carried into effect, so far will the Act of last year be rendered of no effect. I certainly do not think it right to offer any obstacle or difficulty in the way of the Bill passing, it being a general measure all over the Kingdom, and the effects of it being uncertain as to what extent the Postmaster General would require these lines in London. Nor
1868
did I see my way to moving any Amendment, simply to save the existing jurisdiction of the London County Council, because the effect of that would be to introduce some confusion into the lines possessed by the Postmaster General, some of which would be subject and others not subject to the London County Council. I therefore did not see my way to propose to maintain the jurisdiction vested in the London County Council over the lines they have now. But your Lordships will see that it does make a very considerable difference in the state of things, and it seems to me that, if this Act is generally put into force, the time will come, perhaps next year, when the whole subject must be reviewed, and it must be considered whether it is not right to have some authority which, in the general interests of the inhabitants of London, shall have some jurisdiction over these lines. I do not propose to review the principle now, but I do not like to let the Bill pass without giving full notice that there will be a demand to review it.
*LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, I believe the House will expect me to say a word or two in reply to the observations of the noble Lord; and I should like to say at once that I cordially and cheerfully acknowledge the courtesy which he has displayed in not moving an Amendment, and simply confining himself, at this period to the Session, to making a protest, and giving the notice that he has been good enough to give on this occasion. My Lords, I am bound to say, however, that I think that in speaking on behalf of the London County Council he overrates the importance of the change made by this Bill. As he told your Lordships fairly and frankly, the lines owned by the Postmaster General on behalf of the Post Office were exempted from the Bill of last year. But there was no prohibition in the Bill of last year against the Postmaster General acquiring existing lines, and therefore, if without this Bill at all the Postmaster General had acquired any lines, they would ipso facto have passed out of the jurisdiction of the London County Council. Therefore, the only connection of the Bill with the matter, is because

1869
the Bill proposes to give the Treasury power to raise a million of money to expend on telephones. I am not on this point able to speak with absolute certainty; but I cannot conceive that not much of that million pounds can be expended within the jurisdiction of the County Council of London. I say not much relatively, and for this reason: that the policy of the Post Office, confirmed by a Select Committee of the other House of Parliament, is, as I explained to the House the other day, that the Post Office should purchase the trunk lines, and not the lines of intercommunication between points within municipal areas. For instance, the exchange in London from one point of London to another will, as I understand the matter, remain in the hands of the companies; and similarly at Birmingham, Liverpool, or Leeds. If at any point one man in Birmingham desires to communicate with another in Birmingham he will communicate with him under the control of the company having the licence for that community. The object of the Bill is to procure for the Postmaster General the trunk lines between London and Birmingham, and Birmingham and Liverpool, or any other of the important centres; and therefore, although I quite admit that, if wires are purchased by the Postmaster General within the jurisdiction of the County Council of London, to that extent they will pass out of the provisions of the Bill of last year and into the exceptions, I have already said that I do not think it is a matter of great importance; and I think, my Lords, I may say this, on behalf of the Post Office, that they will be prepared to receive and consider any representation on the matter which the London County Council may be good enough to make to them, having regard to the way in which this Bill has been received by the County Council on this occasion. At the same time I would like to say that on this point the Bill has not been altered since it left another place, and that the Post Office would have been very glad to discuss the matter in the other House, where there was more time to do it, but where they did not know that any objection was entertained to any of the provisions of the
1870
Bill on behalf of the London County Council.
LORD HOBHOUSE: May I say one word—that the speed with which this Bill was passed through the House of Commons and has come up to this House has been such that the County Council have hardly had time to take breath in the matter?
*LORD BALFOUR: The Bill was for some time before a Select Committee—at least I understand so.
LORD HOBHOUSE: I did not know anything about that.
Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

LAND COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND) BILL.
COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to order).
*THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: My Lords, I asked my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal last night why the extra payment for the Land Commissioners was put off for a year? If the noble Lord is unable to answer me now I will ask the question again tomorrow.
Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to order).
Clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1—
*THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: My Lords, I have an Amendment to leave out of the first Schedule lines 43, 44, 45, and 46. This, my Lords, is a very important Bill for us, and I should like shortly to tell your Lordships what effect this Schedule would have. In the year 1887 your Lordships' House passed an Act which, in the shape in which it left your Lordships' House, provided that a tenant, who held a lease, would either go into Court or be taken before the Court to have his lease reviewed. That was objected to because many tenants held leases which were of great advantage to them, and those tenants did

1871
not wish to be brought in. Therefore Mr. Parnell objected to this proposal, because he said that tenants would be compelled to come into Court and become yearly tenants, whether they wished to or not. Mr. Balfour agreed with him on that point, and said that, if the clause were carried in that state, the moment it passed all leases would be broken, whether they were in favour of the landlord or the tenant. Mr. Parnell proposed an Amendment providing that the clause should not come into operation, except upon application by the tenant, in the prescribed manner in the Court of Lessees. That appears to have been accepted by the House of Commons, and it was moved by Mr. Parnell that that should take place if the leaseholders applied to the Court of Lessees within three years from the passing of the Act. Mr. Parnell was at that period the Leader of a very powerful Party in the House of Commons, and he thought that three years would satisfy all the necessities of the case; it would not be an extensive period, but it would enable substantial justice to be done in the matter. Mr. T. W. Russell had another Amendment to limit the time to two years, and, after a time, Mr. Balfour suggested that two years was quite sufficient; Mr. Parnell then agreed to limit it to two years, and he himself moved that that should be the limit. The result of that has been that it enabled leaseholders to go into Court and have their rents fixed, if they wished to do so, and the time given them was to the 23rd August, 1889. Now, my Lords, what has been done with regard to this Act? Each year it has been slipped into the Expiring Laws Continuance Act; it was slipped in in 1889, 1890 and 1891, and now it is again proposed to be slipped in. I protested last year in your Lordships' House that it was very unfair to keep this matter unsettled—the leaseholders have ample time to go into Court if they wish it, and there is no reason why your Lordships' House, or the other House of Parliament, should have put a limit into the Bill if it is to be continually extended by the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill—there is no meaning in a limit in that case—you had better pass a Bill per
1872
mitting leaseholders to go into Court for ever. The Government of Ireland—and that is the only fault I have to find with them—have never any finality about anything. Let me point out also that, if you strike these lines out of the Schedule, the leaseholders will have their attention drawn to the fact that if they want to apply to the Court they can do so, and they have got to the 31st December this year. Is not that enough? On the other hand, if you put this into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill they will have a year and a half; next year they will have another, as it will be continuously slipped in. And I may tell your Lordships that the only reason given in another place for this, by the Minister in charge, was that it had been slipped in continually before, and he did not see why it should not be again. My Lords, I protest against that system of legislation, and I beg to move the Amendment that stands in my name.
Amendment-moved, First Schedule, page 5, line 43, to leave out lines 43, 44, 45, and 46.—(The Marquess of Waterford.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess has explained with great clearness, and with the familiarity that on such occasions he always displays, the matter with which he is dealing; but I am afraid I cannot accept his Amendment, and I must ask your Lordships to affirm the clauses and the schedules as they stand. But, my Lords, I do so upon a much more simple ground than that which the noble Marquess attributes to my right hon. Friend in the other House; and my ground for asking it is that the Chief Secretary, who is familiar with the question, I submit, in Ireland, says that it is absolutely necessary for the administration of this law to which the noble Lord has referred, and that he could not possibly dispense with the period for which he asks, unless your Lordships insist upon his doing so. The noble Marquess says that it has happened three times already, and this will be the fourth time, and I think that his argument, which he has very powerfully urged, increases in force as time goes on, and that the

1873
noble Marquess will have made a very powerful attack upon the continuance of this practice in future. My Lords, it always does happen that at the end of a somewhat exciting and busy time something is not disposed of or swept up, so to speak, in Parliament. I am not competent to argue the fact whether these leaseholders have or have not a sufficient time, and whether it is possible to enforce it upon thorn within six months; I can only take what my right hon. Colleague tells me—namely, that he cannot do without it; and I should think the noble Marquess himself would hesitate to insist upon his Amendment in the face of such an assurance. I can know nothing about the merits, certainly not so much as the noble Marquess does; but I give him the assurance of the Chief Secretary; and if the same attempt is made another year I will undertake not to move this Bill with that provision in it.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I do not feel perfectly sure that the effect of the Bill is that which my noble and learned Friend says is intended—it is certainly rather a curious method of legislation. Section 1 of the Act of 1887 provides that at any time within two years after the passing of that Act an application may be made. What does this Bill do? It says that the Acts mentioned in the first schedule, including this Act of 1887, shall to the extent specified in column 2 be continued until the 31st December, 1893, and what is specified in column 2 is so much of Section 1 of 50 and 51 Victoria, chapter 33, "as relates to the time within which applications under the section may be made." But what you extend is that part of the Act which provides that application must be made before the 31st December, 1889; you do not alter, as it seems to me, the provision that the application must be made after the passing of the Act and before the ending of the year 1889; at least it seems to me by no means clear that you do. What really is proposed is not to extend the existing law at all, but to amend the Act by providing that the time for application may extend to a certain date; and it seems to me very doubtful indeed whether you have done so by saying that the Act, or a part of the Act which
1874
provides a particular thing, shall be extended to a particular date.
LORD MACNAGHTEN: My Lords, I think the observation of my noble and learned Friend is justified; but I must say that this is the way in which Acts have been extended for many years, and I am sorry that my noble and learned Friend has drawn attention to it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If there is any doubt I think it would be very easy to frame an Amendment which would set it right.
LORD MACNAGHTEN: I would ask my noble and learned Friend not to alter it now, because there are so many cases of the same nature.
LORD HERSCHELL: But, if it were altered now, it would be altered to validate the extension as from the original date.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not quite certain that I concur with the construction which my noble and learned Friend puts upon it. What is extended is so much of Section 1 as relates to the time within which applications under the section may be made; that is in the general sense.
LORD MACNAGHTEN: I think the words are the same as in the other Act. I believe it has been extended precisely in the same way.
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: It has.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I doubt very much whether it would be desirable to amend it, because, if it has been done by those same words in other Acts, I am afraid, if what my noble and learned Friend proposes were done, you would have to validate what has been done under the other Acts, and that I think would be a very serious undertaking to go through.
LORD HERSCHELL: I withdraw any observations that I made, in the hope that in the future some clearer mode may be adopted.
*THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: My Lords, I think the answer of the Chief Secretary, which the noble and learned Lord has given to me, that he cannot administer the law, unless this Act is continued in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, is a very extraordinary one. What are the facts? There is no feeling—there has never been a meeting in Ireland in favour of it;

1875
every single leaseholder who wishes to come in has six months still in which to lodge his application. Really, I think that on the part of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant it is a very unfair answer to give to say that he cannot carry on the government of Ireland without it. My Lords, it is not really very material—I should divide your Lordships' House upon it if I thought it were—but I do not think so, and if my noble and learned Friend will give me the promise that, if he has charge of this Bill next year, he will not again propose this same extension, I shall be very glad to withdraw my Amendment. But really, my Lords, it is not fair to keep us always in this seething state of excitement.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I entirely concur with what the noble Marquess has said with regard to the extreme difficulty which is occasioned, in the management of any estate in Ireland, by the constant changes that Parliament is making. I pointed out to your Lordships the other day that these things are much better understood by the tenants' representatives in another place than by anybody else, because they comprise a large number of men who are either barristers or solicitors practising at Quarter Sessions and the Courts, and familiar with every turn and trick of these tribunals. The result is that, whenever a Bill is brought in connected with Ireland, one small Amendment and another is put in, all in the tenants' interests, and all whittling down what remains of the landlords' interests, and it is not fair play. And not only so, but the moment you have adapted the management of an estate, both in spirit and in letter, to the decrees of the Legislature, something else—it may be a small or it may be a large matter—comes down upon you, is imposed by the Legislature, and you have to change every arrangement that you have made. What is the result? Even on estates where landlords are on the best of terms with their tenants, the lawyer is never out of the office; not because there is any doubt about the law as it originally stood, but because every year this or that little thing is introduced, which noble Lords frequently consider of very small importance, but
1876
which, when it comes to be worked out, makes a considerable difference in the administration of an estate. I cannot for the life of me understand why Parliament in its wisdom, having imposed a certain limit of time within which leaseholders should come in, should, by a side wind, alter the very enactment which Parliament passed, and which was fully argued in another place at the time. There was no man who better understood what the interests of those whom he represented were than the late Mr. Parnell. After full discussion, he was satisfied that two years were sufficient for this purpose; and it was after a Debate, and after a suggestion made by Mr. Balfour, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, that that limit of two years was inserted. Now it has been three times enlarged, and is about to be enlarged for the fourth time. And, my Lords, what is the use of it? If there were any real hardship I am not one of those who would wish to do anything that savours of sharp practice as regards the tenants; but in this case there can be no possible harm. As my noble Friend has pointed out, there are still six months during which any leaseholder may avail himself of the benefits of the Act, which Mr. Parnell would have been satisfied with had it terminated three years ago. Under those circumstances, what possible hardship can there be? The leaseholders of Ireland are decidedly the best class of tenants, taking them all round; they are the most intelligent; they know their own interests far better than any of your Lordships do; they are competent to take care of themselves; and, if they have not availed themselves of the Act up to this time, what possible reason is there for now extending it? If anybody, by mistake or from illness, or any other cause, has been unable to come in, he would now have full notice that he must make his application within the next six months. Surely, my Lords that meets the justice of the case. It is turning the whole question into a farce if the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is to be passed and an Act of this kind, which was not considered necessary at the time, which has already had ample scope for extension, is now to be included again a fourth time in the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Marquess, in quoting me, substituted one word for what I said, which makes a considerable difference. I never said that the Chief Secretary could not carry on the government of Ireland without this Bill. What I said was, that he could not administer this law without more than the six months which would be left to him; and I should be sorry to be quoted as having said that this Bill was absolutely necessary for carrying on the government of Ireland.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, in the absence of my noble Friend the Prime Minister, I have been requested to take charge of the Bill at this stage, and I propose to move that your Lordships go into Committee upon it; but perhaps it will save time if I say that the objections raised to certain provisions in this Bill, to which I think the noble Marquess referred yesterday, are of a description which, in our opinion, renders it almost impossible to press the clauses which contain those provisions. The noble Marquess has told us that he has been reduced to a state of seething excitement, and I confess that I think it is probable that a large proportion of that metamorphosis is owing to the provisions contained in these clauses; and I hope that now he will be to a certain extent cooled. I therefore simply move that your Lordships go into Committee on the Bill.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The, Earl Cadogan.)
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, after what has fallen from the noble Earl I have nothing to say, except that I should like to point out the extreme inconvenience of drafting clauses of this sort in the way in which these clauses
1878
are drafted. Here is a clause, involving the transfer of a liability to repay something like half-a-million of money, and the only means your Lordships have of arriving at the true meaning of it is by wading through a number of Acts of Parliament, admittedly very difficult of construction, and which it probably would require a legal head to understand.
Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly; Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow.

SHOP HOURS BILL.
COMMITTEE.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."
*LORD KNUTSFORD: My Lords, in deference to certain criticisms which have been passed on this Bill, I have prepared some Amendments which will be printed to-day, and I propose to take them on the Third Reading.
Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be road 3a To-morrow.

BRITISH COLUMBIA (LOAN) BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, a scheme for the colonization in British Columbia of a number of families of crofters was discussed in this House last year, in the month of April, and, I think I may say, received general approbation. The terms of an agreement at that time between the Colonial Government and Her Majesty's Government had not been quite arranged, but, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I then stated that they viewed with favour the proposal for a colonisation of this kind coming from a province so well able to secure the performance of their agreement as British Columbia.

1879
I will only add that the scheme was strongly approved by a very strong Select Committee upon Colonisation which was formed from both sides of the House of Commons; and therefore I confidently recommend this Bill to your Lordships for Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Knutsford.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

POST OFFICE—SUNDAY LABOUR.
MOTION FOR A RETURN.
*THE EARL OF HARROWBY: My Lords, I should like to explain in a few words my reason for moving for this Return on the Paper. I hope that it will show the successful conclusion of a movement which affects a great army of meritorious public servants—the Post Office officials—which has been going on now for a long period of years, and has interested a number of persons, the greater proportion of whom are of the working class. This Return that I move for is similar to one that was given in the House of Commons, on the Motion of the Recorder of London, about twenty-five years ago; but, at the request of the Postmaster General, I have somewhat reduced its size: having struck out the details, added in 1867 at the request, I believe, of the then Post Office authorities, which seem to me now to be of little value. At that time attention was called to the serious grievance which a large number of the Post Office officials laboured under, of having to work all the seven days of the week—sometimes, I think I have been informed, as much on Sundays as on weekdays—an exceptional state of things as compared with almost any other public servants. The intolerable amount of toil which letter carriers and rural messengers had to undergo in this way, all the seven days of the week, nearly all through the year was startling to many persons; it arrested the attention of the House of Commons shortly after this Return was give in 1867; they passed a strong Resolution in favour of reducing Sunday labour by all prudent means; an important Departmental Committee, consisting of Sir George Grey,
1880
Lord Dalhousie, and Mr. Monsell, was appointed to go into the question, which introduced great improvements; and there the matter rested for a while. Recently again, I am happy to say, the Post Office has largely introduced a system of relief, by means of which many I believe of these meritorious men are able to have alternate Sundays to themselves. It undoubtedly would appear that it has taken rather a long time to bring the Post Office round to what one would imagine was a simple matter of organisation, the cost of which the large profits on their business which they pay into the Treasury could well afford. I have little doubt, however, that it was the Treasury, which has often stood in the way of other good things, which has hampered the beneficent desires of the Post Office. In 1887 a House of Commons Committee was appointed to investigate the arrangements of the Post Office as to Sunday labour; they found that the evil was still lurking—that some sorting clerks had Sunday duty every week in the year: that many had seven Sundays at work out of eight: and some three Sundays at work out of four; they found also that about a thousand rural messengers worked every Sunday in the year. They made various recommendations as to the Sunday collection of printed matter, and as to other subjects, with a view of checking Sunday labour, and I think, if I remember right, recommended that all should have alternate Sundays free. I have a good hope that by this time the evils have been remedied, and that we shall find that this movement, which has taken a great deal of labour on the part of the House of Commons and others, has come to a successful conclusion. My Lords, there is another reason why I wish for this Return; and that is to compare what has been done by our Post Office with the results in similar offices abroad, in consequence of the striking change as to Sunday Postal labour and Sunday labour generally in the capitals of the Continental countries since M. Leon Say's great International Congress in 1889 at Paris in connection with the Universal Exhibition in favour of the Seventh Day's Rest.

1881
My Lords, it must be a gratification to us in England to feel that not only have we released our own Post Office officials from the undue pressure of Sunday work, but that our example has been largely followed abroad. In the last two or three years Berlin and Vienna have, I am informed, knocked off almost all Sunday work, by reducing the Sunday deliveries to one; in Copenhagen, Strasburg, Germany generally, Sweden, &c, since the Congress in Paris, and very much owing to the example of London and of England generally, the Sunday work has been largely diminished for these officials; and Switzerland has taken the strong line of passing a law of the State that all postal officers must have fifty-two free days in the year, of which seventeen must be Sundays; while they have extended this further to men employed on railways, steamers, omnibuses, and trams. So that this movement, which was initiated, now many years ago, in the British House of Commons, for releasing our Post Office servants from Sunday labour, has not only been fruitful at home, but has done an infinite service to large bodies of men in similar employment on the Continent. My Lords, I wish then not only to compare these returns with those from abroad, but also to encourage those who are working abroad for the same cause by the conclusive example of England after all her experience. I wish also to see that the Post Office has finally concluded, as I hope we shall find, this really important matter, affecting large numbers of men, so that we should be able to show that every possible arrangement has been made for the reduction of Sunday work and the fixing of Sunday rest. I also think that there is one other reason of no slight importance in favour of securing this Eeturn—namely, that thereby we shall call the attention of the Post Office Authorities—who have not always formerly been sufficiently alive to this question—to the fact that Parliament and many people outside are watching any encroachments upon this matter of Sunday rest, at a moment when there have been some signs in London of a desire to increase the labour of the officials instead of diminishing it on the seventh day of rest.
Moved, That there be laid before the House,
"Returns—Of the number of persons of all ranks and classes employed, in 1867 and in 1892, in the service of the Post Office in the United Kingdom;
Of the number of surveyors, inspectors, postmasters, postmasters' clerks, stampers, sorters, letter carriers, rural messengers, and other persons employed in the service of the Post Office in the United Kingdom on Sundays;
Of the number of post offices in the United Kingdom which are open to the public on Sundays, showing generally the number of hours during which they are so open;
Of the names of all post towns in the United Kingdom (irrespective of London and its suburbs) where there is no house-to-house delivery of letters on Sunday; also of the names of all such post towns where there is only a delivery on Sunday from the post office window, showing the number of letters delivered weekly in each of such post towns;
Of the names of all post towns and rural districts where the postmen are released from Sunday delivery on alternate Sundays, with the number of postmen so relieved in each town or district;
Of the number of rural post messengers that work on Sundays;
Of the number of rural post messengers that do not work on Sundays."—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
*LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, I am prepared, on behalf of the Post Office, to assent to the Return being given as it is now asked for on the Paper. The form in which the Motion first appeared was open to objection into which I need not enter, as the noble Earl has been good enough to move for the Return in its present form. My Lords, I have only one remark to make. I think the noble Earl and the House will do wisely to bear in mind that in the reforms which have been instituted, to which the noble Lord has referred, one of the not least important of those which have been introduced in the last few years is that, instead of there being a certain payment or weekly wage for the work of seven days, there is now a certain payment for six days' work and an additional payment when the Sunday is employed in the service of the Post Office. And, so far as any attempt is concerned to force work, as I think the noble Earl said, upon Post Office servants on Sunday in London or elsewhere, I think he will find that the pressure is just as often on the part of the servants to get the additional payment provided for the seventh day's work, as upon the part of

1883
the Post Office to impose the seventh day's work upon the servant. With that explanation I am willing to assent to the Return.
Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL LAW, IRELAND.
QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I think it is desirable that the House should have exact and accurate information with regard to the working of the Criminal Law Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, especially with regard to the operation of that part of Section 2 under which charges for intimidation, criminal conspiracy, or using violence are triable simply before two Magistrates, and in which the right of trial by jury is taken away from the person accused. I therefore wish to ask Her Majesty's Government: (1) How many persons are now in prison in Ireland under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1887; (2) How many persons have been proceeded against, and how many have been sentenced to imprisonment under the Act, since 1st January, 1892; (3) In how many counties or parts of counties is that portion of the Act in force which confers on Magistrates summary jurisdiction, as regards criminal conspiracy, using violence, or intimidation; (4) Has the area in which this portion of the Act is in force been reduced since 1st January, 1892?
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, in reply to the first question of my noble Friend, I have to say that there are at the present time only two persons in the whole of Ireland in prison under the Criminal Law Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, while the daily average number of prisoners under this Act during its earlier application, namely in the June quarter of 1888, was as high as 118. In reply to the second question, since 1st January, 1892, 74 persons have been proceeded against under this Act, and of these 66 were convicted; but the Magistrates felt themselves able to deal with fifty of these cases by merely ordering the defendants to enter into sureties or recognisances, and sixteen persons only have been sentenced to imprisonment under the Act since the commencement of the year. Of those sixteen, as I have already stated, two
1884
only are in custody: one undergoing a term of three calendar months' imprisonment, dating from the 4th April, under conviction and sentence for intimidation committed in the County of Clare; and the other undergoing a like term of imprisonment, dating from the 8th April, for the offence of taking forcible possession. With regard to the third and fourth questions, the areas in which the Summary Jurisdiction Clause of the Act has been enforced in regard to criminal conspiracy, intimidation, and using violence have been reduced from time to time as the condition of Ireland warranted, until they became limited on 13th June, 1891, to the County of Clare and to parts of the Counties of Donegal, Galway, and Tipperary. On 25th April, 1892, it was found to be no longer necessary to maintain the summary jurisdiction of Magistrates under the Act in the last three counties named, so far as regards the offences above specified, and their proclamation was on that date revoked by the Lord Lieutenant in Council; so that at the present time the only area in the whole of Ireland in which that clause is operative is the County of Clare.

THE EARLDOM OF MAR.
On the Earl of MAR rising to put a question, of which he had given notice, to the Lord Chancellor, namely—

"1. Whether his Lordship will read to the House the whole of the letter addressed to him by 45 Peers, referred to on the 21st instant, which points out that the entail of the Mar estates at Alloa in 1739 specially provides that, should the ancient Earldom of Mar, attainted in 1715, be restored (as it was restored through female heirship by Act of Parliament in 1824), the nearest heirs male and female who succeed under the said entail to these estates shall carry the said restored honours of Mar; and which letter also points out that the denial of the rights of the holder of the said ancient Earldom of Mar (thus restored), under the said Act of 1824, to claim these Mar estates as Earl of Mar, was not good in law, being in direct disregard of the said Act of 1824; and also that the alleged 'Earldom of Mar created in 1565,' assumed by the Earl of Kellie, not having been restored by the said Act of 1824 from the attainder of 1715, is, if it ever existed, still under attaint;

2. Whether, as his Lordship observed on the 21st instant, that the said letter 'contained a great number of statements of fact and law which are inaccurate,' he will kindly send to the Peers who signed that letter an answer in writing to the said points raised therein; and also be good enough to state definitely in

1885
writing all the alleged inaccuracies, and explain exactly in what respect these statements are 'inaccurate'"—

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, before the noble Earl puts the question upon the Paper, I think, both in justice to the noble Lords who sent the letter to me signed with their names, and in justice to myself, I ought to ask him whether, since the explanation I gave the other night, he has received the authority of those noble Lords to put that question again, and especially in the form in which it now stands on the Paper?
THE EARD OF MAR: My Lords, in answer to the question that the noble and learned Lord has just put to me, I have not had an opportunity of seeing all the noble Lords who signed that letter, but I have seen some of them, and I consider myself quite justified, on behalf of those whom I have seen, in saying briefly that—
*THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, I rise to move that the noble Lord be not heard. After what took place on Tuesday night when this matter was under discussion, and the very full and clear statement made by the Lord Chancellor who put before us all the facts,—in fact it was more like reading a written judgment than anything else, because he went so minutely into the details,—and after what fell from the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Herschell) and from Lord Selborne, it seems to me that we should be guilty of disrespect to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and that it would not be consistent with the dignity of this House, if again to-night the very same question should be discussed as was discussed, and, as I think, very properly dealt with on Tuesday night. I therefore ask your Lordships not to hear the noble Earl.
Moved, "That the Earl of Mar be not heard."—(The. Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I must say that I agree with the noble Duke, and I should put it very much on this ground: that it seems to me indecorous and improper that any
1886
case which has been decided by litigation should be constantly a matter of Debate in this House.
Motion agreed to.

SALMON AND FRESH-WATER FISHERIES BILL.
Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
EDUCATION AND LOCAL TAXATION RELIEF (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Bill read 3a (according to order), and passed.
MILITARY LANDS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
Bill read 3a (according to order), and passed.
BURGH ROLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
Bill read 3a (according to order), and passed.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES LAW CONSOLIDATION BILL.
Bill read 3a (according to order) and passed.
PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 3a (according to order): Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
ANCIENT MONUMENTS PROTECTION ACT (1882) AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered To-morrow in order to its being suspended for the remainder of the Session.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (POOR LAW) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 14) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
GENERAL POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (INVERNESS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order); Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
MAURITIUS LOAN BILL.
House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

BANKS OF ENGLAND AND IRELAND (PAYMENTS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Seven o'clock.